MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Extra-Pair Paternity in a Socially Monogamous Neotropical Tanager, the Ringed Warbling-Finch<i>Poospiza torquata</i>

2017· article· en· W2789784510 on OpenAlexaff
Rocío Sánchez, Pedro G. Blendinger, Amanda Xuereb, Stephen C. Lougheed

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Ornithologica · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersInstituto Nacional de Tecnología AgropecuariaConsejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
KeywordsBiologyMating systemEcologyZoologyMatingInterspecific competitionSeasonal breeder

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social monogamy with genetic polygamy is a frequent mating system in birds. In Passeriformes, extra-pair paternity (EPP) was reported in 86% of the studied species, with high variation in occurrence and frequency within and between species. In the highly diverse Neotropical region, the genetic mating system is known for only 26 bird species. We present the first molecular data on the genetic breeding system of the Ringed Warbling-finch Poospiza torquata, a socially monogamous species of the tanagers family (Thraupidae) that inhabits arid and semi-arid regions of South America. We obtained data from 92 nestlings belonging to 35 nests during three consecutive breeding seasons (2008–2011). Paternity assignments were made using five microsatellites developed for other bird species, and calculated using CERVUS v. 3.0. We found that extra-pair males sired 20.65% of the offspring in 42.86% of the broods. The EPP level in this species was found to be close to the average level in Thraupidae, with reported values ranging between 8–50% and 15–63% for nestlings and broods with EPP, respectively. This wide interspecific variation points to the ecological factors as being very important in facilitating EPP among Thraupidae species.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.229
Threshold uncertainty score0.951

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa OrnithologicaSame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207